Apple working on their own processors up-to 32 cores

If you have got the expertise and budget, I reckon it would be possible to make a far better architecture than the old x86-64, if you start from a clean table. Apple ought to have knowledge and it certainly has unlimited budget works. Furthermore, Apple makes its own OS, so it will automatically be 100% compatible with the CPU and take everything out of it. It will be expensive, no doubt, but it wouldn't be Apple if it wasn't expensive.

 

Modern x86 CPUs aren't really x86 (in terms of architecture) and the decoder that makes that happen isn't really a problem for AMD/Intel. The advantage Apple has is two fold - one it's processor design is tailored specifically for their software and the applications their users use and two, the cost of the processor is essentially hidden in it's vertical monopoly. If they were actually selling these things theyd be far more expensive than Intel/AMD equivalents based on the die size alone.

Either way it's a good thing that they are stepping up, forces AMD/Intel/Qualcomm/etc to compete and Apple is no slouch, they seem really invested in making this work.

 

Don't know how they'll be faster, or if I believe claims without facts.
That said, more competition is better!
PS: But having poorly designed laptops that can't be serviced is bad, to the point I'd never consider touching them. For the price of a macbook I'd get 1 good laptop to use, and after 2 years I'd get a brand new better one!

 

Yeah in your own controlled environment with software coded by your laws, i bet it would be faster. Let me see Apple play at the multiplatform table and flex there...

 

There is an Steve Jobs gremlin at Apple that from time to time gets out and yells: "We have to be a closed system! We have to build our own hardware".
The ambition of Steve Jobs to have apple laptops and computers as closed systems with only Apple hardware is the reason for PC popularity.
I find it strange that a free open minded visionary like Jobs wanted a closed system and failed at gaining popularity for Apple computers (one of the many reasons why he was fired from his own company) while IBM corporate men created an open system - PC...- not their intention but still...
Apple should learn from history and their mistakes - or maybe they are condemned to repeat these mistakes???
They can create their own CPU but is worth it???
If it's not at least 20 - 50% faster than what is now on the market then what's the point??? - and I strongly doubt that...
How to convince software companies to write programs for their new cpu's architecture when the global adoption rate of their systems is less than 10%??? - they will manage to alienate even the ones that write software for them now...

 

Is not that anyway their intention after all?

Not allowing anyone else repair their electronics, everything server-side setup, closed environment. They do not need to compete with noone else in terms of performance, they just need something completely proprietary and sell the idea that since is a closed ecosystem you are either ultra secure or w/e they use as motto to sell their products. I don't mind at all.

 

seeing intel swish cheese, cpu endlessly in new for security flaws these days, it make sense apple was only intel in some desktops cause it was faster then there stuff.

Can intel really claim to be fastest cpu these days? from what i see there price premium is no longer the price difference but that is me. I like apple closed environment for there OS to begin with less chance thing going wrong when people cant mess with core system. and less prone to virus and malware cause it closed off system.

 

Apple has done a very good job with ARM so far. Even when using Rosetta 2, it offers compelling performance in most cases, and we're just talking first gen here. Give it time and it will get even better, especially as more software gets native builds. Right now Apple is offering 4 low-power cores with 4 high-performance cores, and they're already competing with 6c/12t Intel CPUs at a significantly lower wattage. With 32 cores, it's no surprise why Apple realized they didn't need Intel anymore.

 

"You drunk, Apple?"
"No, I am Cider."
- - - -

Does anyone has name/codename for this CPU line?

 

crapple nuff said

 

How did they convince them to wrote software for the iphone? And still do?
The apple silicon is basically the same arm in iphones and ipads, and was the next logical move since the phones are succesful enough.
At notebook level i think this first generation is at least 20% faster at the same power draw level, at least.

Also intel is going for the powerful + weak core strategy too.

 

Impressive moves by Apple, definitely agree with that. However I wonder how Nvidia purchasing ARM could change this situation in the long run.

 

I all honesty, I've been thinking about Apple users as lizard-people for a long time... so, they need their own system. It all makes sense now.

 

Apple 32 core? So around £10,000 then and probably another £500 minimum for the Apple CPU cooler.
I haven't ever and never will buy Apple.

 

Competition is GOOD!

 

I didn't know that. In that case, they probably cracked their own Pandora box!
Owning their CPUs and not depending on Intel/AMD is a massive asset for any company.
If only they turned more consumer friendly and stop the BS with bad designs and no service.

 

Well that's the thing: their BS is actually a big reason why they managed to achieve what they did. By locking down their platforms, they can control every little thing and dictate how/what is run. As a result, the CPUs only include the bare minimum transistors to do what is needed, and Apple's compiler can micro-optimize everything without risking broken compatibility (since there is no diversity in the platform).
This is the same reason why consoles tend to play games at the same detail level as PCs but with inferior hardware. Apple has done pretty much the same thing, except developers don't have to be acutely aware of the platform in order to fine-tune the results.
Anyway, although it is possible to run another OS on these chips, you won't get the same level of performance as Mac OS.

Meanwhile, you can analyze the opposite end of the spectrum, with open-source OSes like Linux or FreeBSD. Those also get a lot of fine-tuned optimizations too, because all hardware manufacturers have full access to the kernel, you get major corporations who have an incentive to maximize their performance, and you have volunteers who can pick up the slack. So take AMD's open-source GPU drivers for example: they're tightly integrated with the kernel so there are no wasted clock cycles, you have companies like Valve writing newer and faster shader compilers, and then you have community-driven platforms like DXVK which allows you to run DirectX over Vulkan which sometimes yields more performance than playing the same game on Windows (because DXVK is scalable and multi-threaded).

So really, that just leaves Windows in this crappy middle-ground of being proprietary enough that optimizations are finite, yet, not locked-down enough to sacrifice compatibility in the name of performance.

 

Even with the emulation on, so far they'd been very good. Can't get a 1:1 comparison; reviewers have been doing their best to compare the closest "rudimentary spec'd" & the results exceeded everyone's expectations.

@schmidtbag You just wrote an entire post complimenting Apple on their quality control?